- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Vinod Kumar v. Prem Lata .
Factual and Procedural Background
The matter concerns an eviction decree passed against the appellant (petitioner tenant) under Section 13(2)(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. During the proceedings, learned counsel for the petitioner tenant stated that an objection petition filed against execution of the decree—originally preferred by the petitioner's mother and, after her death, pursued by her legal representatives—has been withdrawn. The appeal challenged the eviction decree that had been upheld by the Appellate Authority and the High Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the eviction decree under Section 13(2)(i) was vitiated due to the Controller’s failure to pass an order contemplated by the proviso to Section 13(2)(i), constituting non-compliance with the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Rakesh Wadhawan v. Jagdamba Industrial Corpn (2002) 5 SCC 440 | Interpretation of Section 13(2)(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, including the requirement that the Controller pass an order contemplated by the proviso to Section 13(2)(i) (a “provisional order”). | The Court treated the Controller’s failure to pass the proviso-mandated order as clear non-compliance with the law as interpreted in Rakesh Wadhawan, and on that short ground set aside the eviction decree and remanded the case to the Controller with directions to proceed in accordance with that precedent. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court noted that the eviction decree was passed under Section 13(2)(i) of the 1949 Act. It was not disputed that the Controller had not passed the order contemplated by the proviso to clause (i) of sub-section (2) of Section 13. The Court characterized this omission as a “clear non-compliance” with the statutory provisions as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan v. Jagdamba Industrial Corpn (2002) 5 SCC 440.
On this short ground alone, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the decree (including the affirmations by the Appellate Authority and the High Court), and remanded the matter to the Controller. The Court directed both parties to appear before the Controller on 28-1-2003 and instructed the Controller to first pass a provisional order under the proviso to Section 13(2)(i) and then proceed to hear and decide the case expeditiously in accordance with the law laid down in Rakesh Wadhawan.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL ALLOWED; EVICTION DECREE SET ASIDE; MATTER REMANDED; APPEAL DISPOSED OF WITH NO ORDER AS TO COSTS.
The immediate effect is that the eviction decree passed by the Controller (and upheld by the Appellate Authority and the High Court) does not stand, and the dispute must be reheard by the Controller after compliance with the procedural requirement of passing a provisional order under the proviso to Section 13(2)(i). The opinion indicates no broader implications beyond enforcing compliance with the procedure mandated by the statute as interpreted in Rakesh Wadhawan.
Order
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner tenant states that the objection petition preferred against the execution of the decree by the mother of the petitioner and on her death, pursued by the legal representatives has been withdrawn.
2. Leave granted.
3. The decree for eviction has been passed against the appellant under Section 13(2)(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. It is not disputed that the Controller did not pass an order as contemplated by the proviso to clause (i) of sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act. It is a case of clear non-compliance with the provisions of law as interpreted by this Court in the case of Rakesh Wadhawan v. Jagdamba Industrial Corpn. (2002) 5 SCC 440
4. For this short reason, the appeal is allowed. The decree of the Controller as upheld by the Appellate Authority and the High Court is set aside. The case is sent back to the Controller for hearing and decision in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in Rakesh Wadhawan case (2002) 5 SCC 440. Both the parties through their respective counsel are directed to appear before the Controller on 28-1-2003. The Controller shall pass a provisional order under Section 13(2)(i) proviso and thereafter proceed with the hearing of the case expeditiously.
5. The appeal stands disposed of with no order as to the costs.
Alert